Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The only reason given for rejection by the editorial staff was "Unfortunately, the topic covered in your manuscript is out of our editorial intentions." Since the journal claims a very broad range of topics of interest, (including mathematical modelling, which my article was about), I have difficulty understanding this basis for rejection. I sense that the journal leans towards the interests of the editors, rather than sticking to a stated field of interest.
Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Still, the journal process was speedy and I would consider submitting less technical papers to this journal (to see if I am still out of their editorial interests, if for nothing else).
Motivation:
The process of submitting an article to JGR was smooth and transparent the whole way. Both the reviewers provided constructive feedback which helped improve the quality of the paper and as the review points were addressed satisfactorily, the revised paper was accepted. The entire process from submitting to revision to acceptance took 5.5 months.
Motivation:
This was an invited article, with the abstract approved by a section editor. After two rounds of peer-review, the journal decided to no longer proceed with this invitation. The amount of work that went into this paper was immense and as the article was tailored as per the journal's request it will be difficult to submit this article to a different journal. This was an extraordinarily poor experience.
Motivation:
For my manuscript, the reviewers might have spent a lot of time for review. Actually, their comments substantially improved my manuscript and now it started getting citations also and getting followed by the intended research community.
Motivation:
When I first submitted to this journal the editor gave great recommendations and asked that I resubmit it as a brief. I did this and I got two reviews. One wrote a one line recommendation to add literature and the other just rambled on about why he didn't agree with the argument of the paper. Absolutely terrible.
Motivation:
The reviewing and editorial process took three rounds of comments and revision, after this manuscript was submitted and subsequently rejected in 2015, with comments from the same two reviewers who reviewed the new manuscript this year. Especially the process of keeping the editorial decisions in the hands of the Associate Editor, and then have the Executive Editor comment yet another time delayed the process. The process however did ensure a high publication quality, and a very significant involvement of the editors with their journal output, which is the most important.
Motivation:
The evaluation process was correct. The original manuscript was sent to specialists. The comments were helpfull to improve the final manuscript. The evaluation time was optimal. Sinceresly I recomend this journal.
Motivation:
The rejection in combination with very detailed comments from reviewers allowed us to take the time to revise and improve the manuscript significantly, without too much time pressure.
Motivation:
The paper was rejected due to Editor´s verdict. One of the referees suggested acceptance of the manuscript while the other suggested rejection. The editor decided to take in account the second referee.
Motivation:
The first review round took over 6 months. However, the editor has been very accomodating in terms of the revisions in response to the reviews. Also, I got an extension of two weeks for submitting the mionor revisions.
Motivation:
We were in general happy with the pace and level of communication received during the submission and review process. This seems to be an efficiently run journal.
Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.
Reviewer comments were fair and in some cases necessitated considerable effort to address within a relatively tight resubmission period, but in doing so I can say the manuscript was improved.
Motivation:
Fair criticism, but I had hoped for a major revision/reject&resubmit. Moreover, over 20 weeks for the first review-round is a bit long.
Motivation:
It is unfortunate that one should have to wait 15 weeks for a rejection supported by 5 sentences of a review where the reviewer, despite being overall appreciative of the quality of the material presented, quibbles about general matters and criticises the author for not tackling something (i.e. significance of the data presented), which in fact I spent about 1/3 of the article discussing. Did the reviewer actually read the whole article? I'm honestly not sure. This is a shameful addition to the track-record of the journal that boasts rejection of 80% manuscripts sent for a review. Maybe it is not just the quality of drafts but also the reviews that feeds into this, at first sight impressive, competitiveness-rate!
Motivation:
The Journal offered a speedy, yet rigorous, review procedure. The review wasn't all too brief: the reviewer went into some length with his most accurate summary of the overall argument of the article as well as the data presented therein. All the suggestions for improvement (all mostly minor) were useful and resulted in welcome improvements. There were also various suggestions for grammatical and stylistic improvement, which were useful as well
Motivation:
In terms of quality of the peer-review, BASP has proven to be the most rigorous journal in my publishing experience. For my lengthy analytical article, I was given two 4-page reports written by clearly the top two authorities in my field. (The reports were anonymous but the level of details into which these two scholars went when reviewing my piece clearly was clearly indicative of who was involved.) The reviewers exhibited clear understanding of the argument as well as the materials under analysis; they spotted numerous content errors and inaccuracies and made positive suggestions, all of which resulted in substantial improvements to the piece.
Motivation:
I would have appreciated to receive some proper 'review' (rather than a mere request to correct one typographical error), which would have improved the content of the article. It seems that ExpT don't offer this—at least in my case they didn't.
Motivation:
There was no actual review included in the decision. I was given a generic announcement of acceptance followed by a brief list of typos. I think it'd have been beneficial if the journal provided a slightly more extended feedback to the author as I think that my article would have profited from some suggestions for minor revisions (as is usual in the review process). Otherwise OK.
Motivation:
The editor was fair and the manuscript was declined with an excellent review from the editors of the journal. So it helped us to improve a lot the manuscript before resubmission
Motivation:
The manuscript was well handled by the journal. The problem was more the reviewers who made comments that could be addressed or answered easily. As the reviewer advised the editor that they don't want to see the paper published in this journal, thus any appeal was unlike succeed.
Motivation:
The review experience with this journal was mostly positive. The first round of comments improved the manuscript greatly, as well as the second round. However, my experience is not excellent because the duration to receiving the editorial decision was slightly disproportional with the amount of changes that I had to make.
Motivation:
I had the fortune of the manuscript being accepted without any further changes based on a single (very short & positive) review.
Motivation:
The reviews we got were very detailed - partly, criticism was warranted, but one reviewer tried to change the scope of the paper from a theoretical framework to an empirical study, which was the reason we finally withdrew the manuscript. After receiving the first review, we asked a question concerning the reviewer's suggestions to the editors via e-mail, which was answered as late as two months later (and after several inquiries from our part).
Motivation:
Manuscript was handled in a very efficient and quick way. Input from one of the reviewers was very poor, basically just recommending the addition of 5 own papers to reference list. This type of reviewing should be excluded and the reviewer cautioned. Input from the other reviewer was detailed, useful and constructive.
Motivation:
It took 8 months and a couple of inquiring emails to finally hear back from the journal after submission and receive reviewers' comments. Nevertheless, reviewer reports were detailed, pertinent, considerate and extremely useful to improve the paper. Handling editor was friendly, but handling process was inefficient. Communication was poor, and I only got the final decision letter after editor realised that the journal had already sent me the proofs to revise...
Motivation:
Very quick desk rejection with appropriate justification. Editors at ASR even took the time to comment on the paper, and suggested alternative publications channels.
Motivation:
The review was detailed, perceptive, and helpful. The reviewer spent more time discussing specific details (esp. minutiae pertaining to the data such as presentation and accuracy) than the overall argument, with which he/she seemed to have been in agreement (maybe that's why?). The review was well-informed and enhanced the article (not to mention that it spared the author from several errors, some of them embarrassing). What was particularly superb about this publishing experience was the most excellent copy-editing, for which the journal utilises the famous Dr Iveta Adams of CUP. It is for a good reason that NTS is considered the top-tier journal in the field. Every detail receives adequate attention.